Guess who’s exempt from ObamaCare mandates?
posted at 10:55 am on March 23, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline took Nancy Pelosi’s promise to heart. She said last week that Congress had to pass the first-ever federal mandates on American citizens to purchase a product before we could see what else was in the bill. Now that it’s passed, Wilson discovers that the bill exempts perhaps thousands of staffers on Capitol Hill from a mandate to purchase coverage from government-run insurance exchanges:
House GOP aides and the non-partisan Congressional Research Service believe health care legislation passed this week requires lawmakers to enroll in government-run insurance programs — while exempting leadership staffers, many of whom were instrumental in crafting the bill.
Top staffers buzzed yesterday on an off-the-record Capitol Hill list-serv, citing the part of the mammoth legislation that deals with members of Congress. The federal government can only make available to members and their official staffs health plans created by the bill or offered through an exchange. …
The loophole for leadership staffers could impact thousands of Hill employees. There are 16 active leadership offices in the House and 26 in the Senate, according to the government transparency website LegiStorm. Some are small, with just a few employees. Others are much larger; Speaker Nancy Pelosi paid 54 employees a total of $1.1M in the last quarter of ’09, while House Min. Leader John Boehner paid his 26 staffers a total of $721K in the same quarter.
Anyone shocked by this turn of events? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Congress has a long and notorious history for sticking America with ridiculous mandates while exempting themselves. In fact, that became a theme of the 1994 midterm elections; Newt Gingrich included in his Contract with America a requirement to end such exemptions, such as the ADA, Social Security waivers, and so on. It played well with the electorate, which rightly questioned whether Congress had decided to make itself above the laws it busily made for everyone else after 40 years of Democratic Party control.
Looks like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid didn’t learn that lesson the last time they lost the majority. It’s time for the electorate to give them another object lesson.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
They have to force us all into it.
It wouldn’t look right if the democrats were only rationing health care to the poor fux that voluntarily signed up for Gubbmint insurance.
If we are all being rationed, nobody will know the difference.
cntrlfrk on March 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Yeah, the government coercing you to buy something and not complying is sooo like not shoveling snow from the sidewalk. Seriously, got Swiss cheese for logic? lol
RepubChica on March 23, 2010 at 12:17 PM
Many people view this site as the one place that allows them to spout off. All considered this is a very tame group.
You would definitely be offended AP by the names my closest friends and relatives are using right now to describe Nancy, Harry, Barry Hussein Obama, Axelrod, Deadfish and the socialist Congress.
Good people everywhere are venting, rightfully.
FireBlogger on March 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Are you suggesting that private insurance can’t survive against a competitor which creates the law, doesn’t have to worry about how much debt it incurs and tell doctors how much they are going to take from them?
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Like Rush just said, The economic realities of this do not matter to the people in favor of it.
kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM
And I’m sure that he would be ashamed of how his son has sold his soul to support the modern nazis.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM
It the same smell the Chicago stockyard make!
grapeknutz on March 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:18 PM
Yeah. Sill of me, isn’t it. Need your lawn mowed?
kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I was on the phone with my elderly Mom just a bit ago, when POTUS was signing the bill. Mom’s exact words to me were, “I guess I’ll change the channel over to a re-run of Law and Order, SVU because I’d rather watch a fictional character get raped instead of me.” Mom has always had a way with words.
Shiny_Tiara on March 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM
With the number of e-mail warnings I’ve gotten from him over my seditious comments, I’m sure they’ve set up a special filter to monitor my comments.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:20 PM
–No, he wouldn’t. He also worked in the insurance industry and my guess is that he would have been in favor of this bill.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:22 PM
Bet he wishes his son was.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:23 PM
–If you’re not buying insurance or paying the fine, my costs go up. Understand the connection?
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM
He’d be glad that the Obama and company are putting him out of business?
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:24 PM
Jimbo is upset that his subsidy won’t be as big as it could be. boo hoo
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
I’m genuinely curious how you defend the constitutionality of the mandate to purchase health insurance. Do you view health care as a ‘basic right’?
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:25 PM
–D*ckwad; Nazi Concentration Camp Guard, Unamerican…Got any other names you want to call me before lunch?
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
House lawmakers over the weekend voted to protect TRICARE and Defense non-appropriated fund health care beneficiaries (basically military families/retirees) from this crappy Bill.
The question is, if it’s such a great deal, why are they exempting certain people from it?
NoDonkey on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Hey, while you’re out snitching to “the proper authorities”, you may as well alert my local Parks and Recreation department that I fed some ducks and geese a French bread loaf by the lake over the weekend even though the practice is banned.
RepubChica on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Sounds like prohibition all over again.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:26 PM
Without this siezure of my money you would be responsible for yourself, understand the connection?
thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 12:27 PM
Commie lickspittle
thomasaur on March 23, 2010 at 12:27 PM
What I do know is that I’ll gladly go to jail to NOT pay one red cent of your personal healthcare costs–understand?
RepubChica on March 23, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Only a total idiot would believe that. Then again, that explains why you do.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:30 PM
So violating my basic rights is ok if things are cheaper for you? Things would also be ‘cheaper’ according to liberals if everything was nationalized and we got these money grubbing profiteering business owners. Where does this sort of thinking stop?
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:30 PM
Jimbo, I’m imploring you to think about the road you’re putting yourself on here. Really, seriously, stop and consider the implications of your statement above. Is there a practical limit to the degree of control you’ll seek to assert over others’ behaviors because of an infinitesimal pecuniary externality?
What if they rock-climb? What if they engage in frequent unprotected sex? If they’re in the same pool with you, that also increases your costs. Do you want to be someone who makes this argument?
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM
By controlling your expenses, your costs go up. Understand the connection?
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Poor little jimbo, can’t handle the truth.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:33 PM
Jimbo, you are so AnninCA-ing stupid, you are raising my blood pressure. I should report you to the authorities for potentially raising my health care costs.
Master Shake on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
–I’m not going to get any subsidy. In fact, I’m probably going to be hit by the additional tax on incomes over $200K/$250K for a few years.
–I think it’s pretty clear from the US Supreme Court cases that they will uphold the mandate under their interpretation of the Commerce Clause for the last seventy years. And, even if they don’t, they’ll uphold the fine under the Tax and Spend clause. And I see the mandate as being similar to the requirement to have car liability insurance or to post a large bond. That’s because if you hit me with your car or if you go into a hospital for “free” service, you’re imposing costs on me. I know many of you disagree, but that’s the way I see it.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM
Costs would also go down if we ‘euthanized’ the elderly once they reached a certain age or had incurred a certain amount health care cost.
Healthcare costs would also go down if foods were banned which contributed obesity or heart disease.
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Liberals spend their entire lives dreaming of new ways to make everyone else as perfect as they view themselves to be.
Little things like individual choice and efficiency are a small price to pay for perfecting the world.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
I dunno, the Supreme Court denied the Bush EPA the right to strike down CA emissions standards based on the supremacy of federal law and the commerce clause; because CA had emissions standards first, in the absence of any federal scheme of regulation.
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Freedom is not in the calculus. Believe me, I know. I read a lot of public health journals for my job.
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Next up, Jimbo bans all unhealthy foods, all activities that might result in injuries and supports a law requiring everyone to vist the gym at least three times a week.
Otherwise we might be increasing his costs.
MarkTheGreat on March 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
We don’t care if your costs go up! Understand the connection?
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Please don’t implore. He is a product of too many social sciences studies. A lost cause. I prefer him a snitch–sooner or later all snitches pay a hefty price. History is fraught with examples.
Yeah, if you can threaten me on a public blog with impunity I’ll do it, too.
RepubChica on March 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
–You know what? You’re probably already paying for them if you have insurance, depending on how the risk pools are determined.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Bravo sir.
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:38 PM
Ah the days of
FederalismFeudalism. I never could understand what a serf was. Guess I do now. Thanks democrats!daesleeper on March 23, 2010 at 12:40 PM
–Steve, there’s a difference between not complying with the law and taking on the risks that are built into the system. Are you in favor of people not paying federal or state income taxes while you pay your (more tha) “fair” share because of their failure to comply?
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:41 PM
–
Spare me the BS you spew. You don’t even remotely impress me. You have identified yourself as my enemy and henceforth, I will treat you as such.
RepubChica on March 23, 2010 at 12:42 PM
I’m an agnostic terrified for my country’s soul, if that makes any sense. These policies are a steroid-meth-crack cocktail for busybodies. I can’t believe a guy as at least facially reasonable as Jimbo is going to join a Bolivarian circle or rat out his neighbors and think he’s just acting prudentially (or even conservatively!). If a policy takes us there, there’s something awfully wrong with the policy.
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
I don’t have to own a car and if my local state government wants to impose restrictions on people who CHOOSE to drive then that’s one thing – a FEDERAL mandate that imposes costs and punishments on me based on the fact I’m alive is something entirely different. You support a notion of the Commerce Clause which has not respect for the jurisdictions of states or for personal liberties.
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
And if you ride motorcycles without a helmet, drink beer and eat too many desserts – MY premiums for YOUR health care go up. Understand the connection?
Do I now get to monitor your behaviors because I have to pay for your health care? Oh and if millions of Americans don’t buy computers, iPods and homes, the cost of those go up too so shall we throw in a mandate?
katablog.com on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
–
–I think you meant, by controlling my expenses, my costs go down, right?
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:43 PM
Does it smell like Obamas plane? I heard it stank bad.
javamartini on March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
You’re trying to abstract from the rationale for the law. The mechanism by which your costs are affected is exactly the same.
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 12:45 PM
–And I wouldn’t actually rat anyone out (other than some jerk running a meth lab next door to me or molesting kids), so you’ve nailed it. But I think some of you do need to consider what you’re writing because it could come back to bite you.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:48 PM
This guy is a parasite. He belongs with the party of Depends-wearing dependenents (how ’bout we call them Dependocrats?). His G-ddamn general welfare is nobody’s burden but his own, but he’s too addled with fear and inadequacy to understand it. He is to be pitied and shoved out onto an ice floe to experience his mortality from a point of view where he can’t excercise contempt for others due to the frailty of it.
Western_Civ on March 23, 2010 at 12:49 PM
Denninger is hot! Listen to this blogcast about health care.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM
I can choose not to drive a car and therefore not purchase insurance for it. But in many cases, Americans can’t choose not to live. Now in my case, I may get the chance since I’m entering the “elderly” years and will have mandated death counseling and God forbid I become chronically ill, the US Government will decide if I live or die.
katablog.com on March 23, 2010 at 12:50 PM
How is ADDING to the federal monstrosity known as the U.S. government going to help anyone? Jimbo uses the example of taxes. Granted, a good argument on its face. But, again, how does adding another bureaucracy that requires people to pay for something they don’t want going to help? What is wrong with you Democrats? You do it with the budget deficit (Hey Bush did it, let’s just ignore the one TRILLION dollars and counting that Obama is adding). My God, what a sad time for this country. I believed at one time that I could actually seriously vote Democrat, but those days are gone. They are taking us on a road to socialism, and I won’t stand for it.
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM
–The cost for hazardous activities should be built into the system. The costs for non-compliance probably aren’t (at least not fully).
Hell, it would be a really good idea for the government to convince people to parachute from planes as a hobby after this bill is signed. No medical costs involved if a chute doesn’t open. (Now, motorcycle riding and obesity are different cases.)
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:52 PM
Heh. Pot calling kettle on Line 1!
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Rush is talking about this right now.
OmahaConservative on March 23, 2010 at 12:53 PM
–Not quite the same, IMHO. It’s about the use of “free” medical care, or medical care that you’re not paying for in full.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 12:56 PM
I think, for all the faults of this huge, budget busting bill, if they would take the requirement to pay a fine for not having insurance out of the bill, I would be just fine with it. I have a feeling this will be a sticking point with the Republican congress in the future, and I hope they do everything in their power to repeal it.
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 12:57 PM
–
–Agreed and understood.
–The issue is adverse selection. If you’re not required to buy insurance, costs for everyone else will go up because you won’t buy the insurance until you need it. That’s why the insurance companies have been pushing for the individual mandate. They need to spread the costs across a big risk pool.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
Since we want to rely on the “promote the general welfare clause in the Constitution to mandate purchase of health insurance, let’s look at it for a minute:
Hmmm see any problem with that based on the original topic of this thread?
Could the exemption of Congress and certain staff, the Gator Aid, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase and several other favors (like to the unions) cause a Constitutional problem? What’s uniform about these special deals?
katablog.com on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
I guarantee you — dollars to donuts — that in the next 10 years you’ll see a massive bump-up in public health communications programs designed to influence behaviors, based largely on a public-fisc rationale. These already go on, of course. You’ll also see funding to states to develop more, er, assertive programs.
CDC’s one of my biggest clients. I’m telling you it’s coming.
Give it a generation and we’ll be denying citizenship to people because they have a kid with trisomy. Already happened in Australia.
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
No! The costs for last year presumed a certain expenditure per patient. If you don’t pay your fair share– by dodging the premium or being frugal, whatever– you force them to raise prices for services next year!
That’s what the Post Office, utilities and mass transit do every year. Now, it’s gonna happen with healthcare.
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 1:00 PM
He’s right. With guaranteed-issue you have to have a mandate or the pools unravel.
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 1:01 PM
…or decrease the numbers of those costing the most. But then, gulags and elimination of dissenters is what your type does best. You’ll just get the added benefit of cost savings this time.
What’s a few lives, so long as Jimbo has cheaper insurance premiums?
Master Shake on March 23, 2010 at 1:05 PM
You need to listen to this, and then come back and tell us what you think in an hour.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM
This is still not sufficient reason to violate my rights. You may have a good reason to violate my rights – in your mind – but you’re still violating my rights.
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM
I think katablog has a point. This should provide another avenue for challenging this disgusting bill’s constitutionality on an Equal Protection basis. The states are already going after it because some states are treated differently, but now we have individual citizens being treated differently.
Jill1066 on March 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM
Jimbo regardless of what he thinks, isn’t going to have cheaper premiums. He’s going to have more expensive premiums. Whats to prevent me from taking the nominal penalty, and then only signing up for insurance once I become ill, since they are removing the pre-existing condition exclusion. When smart Americans figure this out then the only people getting insurance will be the sick, and what is that going to do to Jimbo’s premiums?
DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 1:09 PM
And again, I don’t care if your costs go up. It’s none of the federal government or state government’s business if I have health insurance or not. Using the car insurance argument won’t work with me either. Again, as I argued before, you’re adding to the bureaucracy and the nanny state. That argument is hollow.
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 1:10 PM
It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctive native American criminal class … … … except congress.
- Mark Twain
MB4 on March 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM
So what shouldn’t the government control? We should nationalize everything because it would be ‘free’? I’m apparently responsible to house, clothe and feed myself and my family but for some reason healthcare is special? Screw that – I want the government to pay for my home and food and clothing!
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Let see, if you want to mandate me to pay for your health insurance, it would only be fair for me to mandate your lifestyle choices. As soon as you deviate from MY mandated lifestyle, then you would no longer be covered by universal health insurance. Henceforth, you will no longer be able to drink alcohol, smoke, take illicit drugs to include what you smoke from your bong. You will be required to eat lots of fruits,vegetables and grains, exercise 1-2 hours a day to include aerobic exercises and stay within my mandated weight range. Now that would lower health care costs.
I have no problem helping those that deserve help, I have a problem being mandated to subsist those who have made poor life decisions which would be … all Democrats!
PrettyD_Vicious on March 23, 2010 at 1:12 PM
Why, I’d horse-whip you if I had a horse!
- Groucho
MB4 on March 23, 2010 at 1:14 PM
Come on everyone – the government won’t let premiums and taxes go up that much…they’ll just use rationing of care to keep costs down! Don’t worry! You’ll still have your ‘free’ healthcare (it just might accessible several months too late).
gwelf on March 23, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Heh. AMEN!!!!
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 1:18 PM
–Our employer-provided insurance is already giving semi-required counseling on how to lose weight, how to control blood pressure, how to stop smoking, etc. I’m sure my employer would love to charge overweight people (like me) or people who can’t control blood pressure, cholesterol, etc. a significant premium no matter what the cause if they could get away with it, like they can with smoking.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM
No they won’t, because we don’t have free health care, yet. This bill is designed to usher in free health care, and how will it do that? It is designed so that the masses at some later date will beg Congress to ride to the rescue, and institute single payer. Don’t look for the government to attempt to control premiums or impose anything other than a nominal fine for not having health insurance. It’s not a bug it’s a feature.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 1:21 PM
–I
–So why are you arguing with me? RepubChica is the one who’s dodging the premiums.
Jimbo3 on March 23, 2010 at 1:22 PM
So in your eyes, running a Meth Lab is equivalent to not buying health insurance?
So you routinely report illegal aliens?
PappaMac on March 23, 2010 at 1:23 PM
There it is folks, Jimbo wants us to subsist his eating, exercise, and lifestyle choices.
PrettyD_Vicious on March 23, 2010 at 1:25 PM
Let’s chip in for a straight-jacket for him too. Anyone for a trip to Terrell or Rusk? (inside joke)
NathanG on March 23, 2010 at 1:27 PM
I’m actually thinking of buying some insurance company stock. I think the Dems plan on allowing the insurance companies to run wild, and that’s how they get the country to beg for single payer.
DFCtomm on March 23, 2010 at 1:29 PM
Gasp!
Anyone have the phone number for Homeland Security?
justltl on March 23, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Just ask Jimbo. I’m sure that’s where he’s been reporting the HA insurance thought-criminals….
Master Shake on March 23, 2010 at 1:33 PM
Here’s the whole thing you are missing Jim. No one REQUIRES you to take employer provided insurance. You can walk down the street and purchase another policy with the provisions that best fit you and your family. But all that ends with Obamanation Care. Suddenly you will be told what insurance you must have regardless of the differences in your family needs vs mine. And the “semi-requirements” will become requirements.
katablog.com on March 23, 2010 at 1:34 PM
And they have the chutzpah to celebrate this openly. They honestly think the polls will turn around. What planet are they on? It there’s one thing almost everyone in this country hates it’s elitist behavior. These Dems are giving it new dimension and can’t even figure out why they’re sinking. I know it’s always been done this way. But Dems, listen up, there’s a crucial difference now..everyone knows what you’re doing and knows it within seconds of when you do it. They are not happy. It doesn’t matter what’s been done in the past, it’s the here and now.
jeanie on March 23, 2010 at 1:35 PM
You understand the difference between a private entity’s requirements and the requirements of the federal government, right?
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM
DrSteve on March 23, 2010 at 1:37 PM
If this Administration has their way, there will be no private entities.
kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 1:39 PM
Obama just signed a bill that requires the insurance companies pay back 85 % of their revenue as claims, instead of 65 %. Do you have a room that me and my family can stay in, Jimbo?
kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 1:41 PM
What? You DARE raise my costs! Keep it up and I’ll report you to the proper authorities!
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 1:43 PM
Why not 110% and retire some federal debt?
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Why not 110% and retire some federal debt?
Chris_Balsz on March 23, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Why not 3,000%?
kingsjester on March 23, 2010 at 1:49 PM
The future Obamanomy, we will simply exist to micromanage each other.
Lack of exercise or unhealthy eating will be considered a drain on the public and people will be urged to report people who are a drain on the system and are therefore abusing tax dollars.
The same theory is going to be used in the ‘green jobs’ sector. Think “card-check” with your utility bills.
Public posting of your energy usage to shame you into using less.
They used to call it bullying, or peer pressure.
Now it’s the Obamanomics.
And it’s only the beginning.
cntrlfrk on March 23, 2010 at 1:51 PM
One of the things I appreciated about Paul Ryan was that he suggested that the American people get the same sort of health care options Congress has.
Terrye on March 23, 2010 at 1:53 PM
If you soak the bread in alcohol before you feed it to them, you should be able to get them drunk enough that you can easily catch them for easter dinner.
PrettyD_Vicious on March 23, 2010 at 1:54 PM
Snitch.
justltl on March 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »